Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (13083)	3/20/2012 11:48:14 AM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

That is an interesting point. I wonder what the incremental cost was versus what simply having the troops at home would have been? For certain the cost of equipment and ammunition has been much higher. Future VA costs will also be much higher.

To: longnshort who wrote (13083)	3/20/2012 11:48:24 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 85487

Good point. Of course the fuel use and esp. the ammo use would be lower stateside, and you'd avoid combat pay, and the shipping costs that you point out (which are high to get things to Afghanistan, esp. to get a lot of stuff out to the back country, not just Kabul or some major base). Still all the base pay and a lot of the other expenses would still occur. And as I pointed out before even if you really could zero out the expenses (which you can't, as you made clear), it would be a drop in the bucket of our oncoming fiscal problems.